Different modes of baptism

ExpandCollapse

New Member

When did the Roman Catholic Church change its mode of baptism from immersion to sprinkling and why? Here is a quote from a Jack Chick comic book( just kidding, but I may as well say it before I get falsely accused, and it isnt from Boettner either.)

It is from a Catholic publication:
"In the Latin Church immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century.......the most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion." (shortened form. I type like a blind man.)

Do you think that maybe the move from adult to infant baptism brought more frequent baptisms and out of convenience went to sprinkling and pouring?

ExpandCollapse

<img src=/me3.jpg>

Below is from the Didache and how the Catholic Church teach what the Apostles were taught, on water baptism. Where does one find this in our KJV?

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism.
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so
in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by Lorelei: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />CHAPTER 7
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Doesn't this say pouring the water is an alternative if you don't have access to other means?

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]Lorelei,

I would say that you are correct. Having said that, it is important to remember the distinction between doctrine and discipline.

New Member

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by MEE:Below is from the Didache and how the Catholic Church teach what the Apostles were taught, on water baptism. Where does one find this in our KJV?

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism.
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so
in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

MEE

Click to expand...

MEE, to be honest, the best that you can say is that you interpret the KJV to say that Baptism is by immersion. I do not recall a specific verse that says to immerse.

ExpandCollapse

<img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

Forgive my use of the term "sprinkle", it just best describes the one baptism I saw that was not done by immersion.

As for the scriptural reference for immersion, it's in all of them. Baptize means to immerse.

BAPTISM

The word baptism is the English form of the Grk. baptismos. The verb from which this noun is derived-baptizo-is held by some scholars to mean "to dip, immerse.
(From The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by Lorelei:
The word baptism is the English form of the Grk. baptismos. The verb from which this noun is derived-baptizo-is held by some scholars to mean "to dip, immerse.
(From The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)

Click to expand...

~Lorelei[/QB][/QUOTE]

"...held by some scholars to mean to dip"

Not exactly definative.

Have you seen any representations of a Baptism existing from the first couple of centuries? Paintings for example. They depict persons standing, with water being poured on the head. If such a Baptism was not validly recognized, why would early Christains preserve the scene in such a manner?

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by Lorelei:
I was just pointing out that someone used the Didache to say this is when the method changed and in it's own writing it didn't actually change the method unless circumstances prevented you.

So I still wait for an answer to the original question. When did it change?

~Lorelei[/QB]

Click to expand...

Let's take this one step at a time. Would you then agree that the Didache indicates that, at a minimum, Baptism by pouring was permitted if immersion was not possible or practical?

ExpandCollapse

<img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

Originally posted by trying2understand:Let's take this one step at a time. Would you then agree that the Didache indicates that, at a minimum, Baptism by pouring was permitted if immersion was not possible or practical?

Ron

Click to expand...

Make your point please, I don't find the Didache authoritave, for it is not Scripture.

My point was that the source quoted didn't make the point it was intended to make. Not whether or not I agreed with them doctrinally.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

you raise an excellent point. To say that the Didache approved of a change in mode when circumstances did not permit tyher normal method is not the same thing as saying that the procatice changed in the time of the apostles. To say that a change occurred would imply that the swtiching of modes was normal. And the Didache clearly speaks of a change only for exceptional circumstances.

The question, then, has not been answered. When did baptism, by any mode other than immersion, become normal?

ExpandCollapse

New Member

you raise an excellent point. To say that the Didache approved of a change in mode when circumstances did not permit tyher normal method is not the same thing as saying that the procatice changed in the time of the apostles. To say that a change occurred would imply that the swtiching of modes was normal. And the Didache clearly speaks of a change only for exceptional circumstances.

The question, then, has not been answered. When did baptism, by any mode other than immersion, become normal?

Click to expand...

The original question was "when did it change?"

We know from documents and other historical evidence that it changed within the first century of the Church. You may wish to add qualifiers, but that does not change the fact that Baptism in a mode other than immersion was accepted by the Church within the first century.

ExpandCollapse

<img src=/me3.jpg>

4. Introduction of Pouring or Sprinkling. Tertullian (ca 180) tells us "there is no difference whether a man is baptized in the sea or in a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or a canal; nor is there any difference between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber.(12) With the introduction of sprinkling water on the candidate instead of immersion as a matter of convenience, the one sprinkled was regarded as a second class citizen of the Kingdom of God: "In the case of illness, one was baptized by pouring. This was the case of Novatus, but one could not then, as a matter of principle become a priest."(13) The very early "Didache" indicates the practice was regarded as a possible alternative of last resort in case of the scarcity of water [quoted above].
The status of sprinkling baptism gradually became the preferred form. One Catholic historian gives the following development: The abbot Corlet sets forth the history thus . . . : "In the Orient in the first centuries, baptism was administered by means of a total submersion in the rivers and probably in the baptistries, and not excluding an immersion mixed with infusion (pouring), which has been preserved to the present day in almost all cases in the oriental region. In the Occident, from the fourth to the eighth century, there was a partial immersion in the baptisteries. . . . From the eighth to the ninth, vertical and complete immersion of children in fonts. During this period, and in the whole course of the Middle Ages, various procedures were used for the baptism of adults, when it was not possible to
submerge in the bottom of the fonts; from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, horizontal and complete immersion in fonts. In the thirteenth and fourteenth, sometimes partial immersion accompanied by infusion, rarely infusion alone. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, infusion alone was employed, and immersion was preserved until our time in the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites; to be noted also the reestablishing of immersion in some religious sects. . . . Nevertheless, in the Latin Church ...along with baptism by immersion, there were employed, if only in exceptional cases, as in case of baptizing a sick or dying person, infusion or sprinkling, which was called baptism of the sick (baptimnus clinicomcm ). If indeed, in the Latin Church, immersion prevailed until the sixteenth century, infusion and sprinkling were adopted from the thirteenth century. The form in use today is infusion."(14)

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!